Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Frank Wilczek gave an interview to the New York Times here. In it he mentions experiments will be run at the LHC regarding Quantum Chromodynamics, for which he co-won the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics, as the article states.

Well, of course there will be QCD experiments run at the LHC.

QCD is all about the inside of the Atomic Nucleus, about the inside of Protons and Neutrons themselves, about Quarks and the Strong Force and their force bosons: Gluons. You don't smash protons into protons withOUT learning much about QCD. Indeed, proton train wrecks are how we gained the data that provided QCD to be developed in the first place.

As an aside, here's a big shoutout to Ernest Rutherford. One hundred years ago this year he discovered the Atomic Nucleus via experimentation. Awesome work.

Also from the interview, something interesting and of note, is a novel Wilczek is working on his spare time regarding four people who discover something Nobel Prize-winning worthy, but Alfred Nobel's will (I think it was Nobel's will, if not it's just policy) allows for only three individual winners for any one award.

Although the article doesn't mention it, could that reflect on Frank's award? Although he won the 2004 NPP along with David Gross and my Slovak-American cousin Hugh David Politzer, I'm curious if any of you know how close Gerardus 't Hooft and Sid Coleman were considered for the same award. Thanks in advance.

And darn it if that article doesn't make me want to explore the latest work in Axions. How's that going?

Monday, December 28, 2009

It never ceases to amaze me, the things humans come up with. This weblog of mine for example, in the right hand margin under "Physics News", made me aware of a new book titled "How To Teach Physics To Your Dog" by Chad Orzel. Click on the title to learn more.

In the meantime, what follows are 2 interviews, the first with Emmy the Dog, and the second with Chad the Human owner. Enjoy:

Talking to Your Human About Physics

A conversation with Emmy Orzel

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;!-- If JavaScript is not supported or disabled, use this image --&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="sidebar_queen.jpg" class='rightimage' width=200 height=267&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; So, why do you talk to your human about physics?
Lots of reasons, but mostly because he won't shut up about it. It's always "Blah, blah, Physics, blah blah Quantum blah blah blah." Sounds like he needs to lighten up a bit.
He definitely needs to get out and chase some more squirrels, if you know what I mean. And bunnies.
It's not too bad, though. Physics is pretty cool.What's cool about it?
Well, for example, there was this guy named Erwin Schrödinger, who had this idea about a cat. You see, if you take a cat, and you stick it in a box with a thing that will kill it 50% of the time. And before you open the box, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
Isn't that brilliant?That's not a real experiment, is it?
Well, technically, it's a gedankenexperiment, an imaginary experiment used to argue that the "Copenhagen Interpretation" that provides the philosophical framework for understanding quantum mechanics leads to absurd results.
But, I mean, think about it: putting cats in boxes! That's brilliant. You need to be some sort of genius human to come up with a great idea like that.Um, yeah. OK. I guess.
If I had a research grant, I would definitely do that.You might have a hard time getting approval for that.
And thumbs. I would also need opposable thumbs.
Maybe I could hire some chimpanzees as post-docs...Moving along, how did the writing of this book go? What was the process like?
It was mostly the big human, to be honest. I was, like, the inspiration, and provided the dialogue, and he did all the bits with math. And typing. He did all the typing.
Once he finished it, though, we read it over together, and I helped him fix it up. He transcribed my comments, and put them in the final draft. They're the best part, if I do say so myself. Which I do. Because I'm the best.So, what's your favorite part of the whole experience?
I'd have to say the treats. I got a bunch of treats when we finished the book. I like treats!What sort of physics things are you thinking about these days?
Well, I've been toying around with trying to learn some relativity. I've also been thinking about quantum information quite a bit. It has some interesting applications.Such as...?
Well, for exaple, there's this thing called Grover's algorithm, that lets you use a computer to search for things really fast. If you have a million things to look through, a regular computer would need a million operations to find something. A quantum computer using Grover's algorithm could do it in only a thousand steps.And what is that good for?
Well, I'm thinking, I could make a quantum computer, and use it to find the bunnies in the back yard really quickly. Right now, I can only find them by sniffing everywhere, and that takes a long time. With a quantum computer, I'd know right where to go, and I could catch the bunnies.Um, actually, Grover's algorithm is for searching a database. It will let you go through computer records more quickly than a classical computer could do. It won't search your back yard for you.
It won't?Sorry, but no.
Oh. Well, I guess it's back to sniffing, then.We'll let you get back to it. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us. It's been... interesting.
My pleasure. Say, you wouldn't happen to have any treats, would you?

Talking to Your Dog About Physics

A conversation with Chad Orzel

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;!-- If JavaScript is not supported or disabled, use this image --&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="sidebar_kegon.jpg" class='rightimage' width=200 height=267&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; So, why do you talk to your dog about physics?
Lots of reasons, but the main one is that I'm a physics professor. Talking about physics is what I do. Sooner or later I talk to everybody about physics.I bet that's a big hit at parties.
You might be surprised. I mean, sure, I get a lot of people making faces and saying how much they hated physics when they took it in college. But some of those same people turn right around and start asking interested questions about the subject.OK, but why the dog?
Talking to the dog about physics is worthwhile because it can help me see how to explain physics to my human students. Humans all come at the subject with the same set of preconceptions about how the world works, and what "should" happen, and it can be very hard to shake those off. That's a big barrier to understanding something like quantum physics.
Dogs look at the world in a very different way. To a dog, the world is a neverending source of wonder and amazement. You can walk your dog past the same rock every morning, and every morning, she'll sniff that rock like she's never sniffed it before. Dogs are surprised by things we take for granted, and they take in stride things that would leave us completely baffled.Can you give an example?
Well, take the dog's bowl, for example. Every now and then, we put scraps from dinner in the bowl when she's not looking, and she's become convinced that her bowl is magic-- that tasty food just appears in it out of nowhere. She'll wander over a couple of times a day, and look just to see if anything good has turned up, even when we haven't been anywhere near the bowl in hours.
This puts her in a better position to understand quantum electrodynamics than many humans.It does?
Sure. One of the most surprising features of QED, in Feynman's formulation, is the idea of "virtual particles." You have an electron that's moving along, minding its own business, and every now and then, particle-antiparticle pairs just pop into existence for a very short time. They don't stick around very long, but they have a real and measurable influence on the way electrons interact with each other, and with other particles.You're making this up, right?
No, not at all. One set of these interactions is described by a number called the "g-factor" of the electron, and this has been measured to something like fifteen decimal places, and the experimental measurement agrees perfectly with the theoretical prediction. If there weren't electrons and positrons popping out of nowhere, there's no way you could get that sort of agreement.So, what's this have to do with the dog?
Well, like I said, the dog is perfectly comfortable with the idea of stuff popping into existence out of nowhere. If a great big steak were to suddenly appear on your dining room table, you'd probably be a little perturbed. The dog, on the other hand, would feel it was nothing more than her due.
So she's perfectly ok with the idea of virtual particles, unlike most humans, who tend to say things like "You're making this up, right?" She was already convinced that there were bunnies made of cheese popping in and out of the backyard, and just regards QED as a solid theoretical justification for her beliefs.And this helps humans, how, exactly?
Physics has a reputation as a difficult and unapproachable subject, especially in fields like quantum mechanics, where the predictions of the theory confound our human preconceptions. If you can put aside a few of your usual notions of how the world works, and think about how things look to a dog, some aspects of physics that seem absolutely impossible to accept become a lot more approachable.Why does this matter, though? Isn't this all stuff that you need a billion-dollar particle accelerator to see?
Actually, no. It's a common misconception, but most of the really cool aspects of quantum mechanics that we talk about in the book are experiments that are done on a table-top scale. One of them, the "quantum eraser," you can even do yourself with a laser pointer and a couple of pairs of polarized sunglasses.OK, but what is it good for, in a practical sense?
Lots of things. It's not an exaggeration to say that modern life as we know it would be impossible without an understanding of quantum phyiscs. You need to understand quantum ideas to build the lasers we use in modern telecommunications, and the transistors that are the basis of all modern electronics. The computer I'm typing this on wouldn't exist without quantum physics.
And there are a whole host of future technologies that are based on quantum ideas. There are exotic applications like quantum computers that can do calculations that would be impossible with any normal computer, and quantum cryptography systems that allow us to make unbreakable codes. But even relatively mundane "green" technologies like more efficient light bulbs, batteries, and solar panels rely on quantum ideas to work.
Quantum physics is everywhere, and drives a huge amount of modern science and technology.So that's why people should teach quantum physics to their dogs?
Exactly. Also, it's just about the coolest thing ever.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

I just saw the film Avatar last night with my 14-year-old son. Beautiful, and chock full with Science both good and bad. Sheril Kirschenbaum has a Discover Blog up about the Science of Avatar, which you can find: here.

Without spoiling the ending, I hope, I must say the ending was quite Hollywood, that is to say: unrealistic.

In any event, here are some nice pics (click on each for more detail):

Questions for those who have seen the film:

What the heck is "the mineral" the Humans searching for? Some kind of "anti-gravity" stuff? Holy flubber! I guess that's how the mountains float, sheesh.

As I mentioned, I found the ending very Hollywood, i.e. very unrealistic, and without spoiling it doesn't it remind you, for those who have the pleasure of reading the novels, of Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" and Orson Scott Card's "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus"?

I enjoyed the film, but it also reminded me of The English and The Spanish in the New World in the 1500's and 1600's, and the bulldozer vs the tree bit reminded me of the animated film "Ferngully."

The artwork of the floating mountains reminds me of the artwork of Roger Dean, whose work graced the album covers of 1970's bands Yes, Asia, and Uriah Heep. The fauna, the creatures, seemed similar to those found in Wayne Douglas Barlowe's sci-fi artbook/"story": "Expedition: Being an Account in Words and Artwork of the 2358 A.D. Voyage to Darwin IV", as well, except on Pandora they have eyes.

But in the end, Avatar is a love story.

A love story yes, just like Cameron's last film: Titanic.

A love story, but I don't know a single guy who saw Titanic for THAT as much as watching the ship get destroyed.

"I was not, and was conceived. I loved and did a little work. I am not and grieve not." - epitaph

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." The Ethics of Belief (1879)

"There is no scientific discoverer, no poet, no painter, no musician, who will not tell you that he found ready made his discovery or poem or picture - that it came to him from outside, and that he did not consciously create it from within." (From a lecture to the Royal Institution titled "Some of the conditions of mental development")

"I ... hold that in the physical world nothing else takes place but this variation [of the curvature of space]." Mathematical Papers.

Born at Exeter, William Clifford showed great promise at school. He went on to King's College London (at age 15) and Trinity College, Cambridge. At the latter, he was second wrangler in 1867 and second Smith's prizeman. He was elected fellow in 1868.[1] Being second was a fate he shared with others who became famous mathematicians. e.g., William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), James Clerk Maxwell. In 1870, he was part of an expedition to Italy to observe an eclipse, and survived a shipwreck along the Sicilian coast.[2]

In 1876, Clifford suffered a breakdown, probably brought on by overwork; he taught and administered by day, and wrote by night. A half-year holiday in Algeria and Spain allowed him to resume his duties for 18 months, after which he collapsed again. He went to the island of Madeira to recover, but died there of tuberculosis after a few months. Eleven days later, Albert Einstein was born, who would go on to develop the geometric theory of gravity that Clifford had suggested nine years earlier.

Yet Clifford is now best remembered for his eponymous Clifford algebras, a type of associative algebra that generalizes the complex numbers and William Rowan Hamilton's quaternions. The latter resulted in the complex quaternions (biquaternions), which he employed to study motion in non-Euclidean spaces and on certain surfaces, now known as Klein-Clifford spaces. He showed that spaces of constant curvature could differ in topological structure. He also proved that a Riemann surface is topologically equivalent to a box with holes in it. On Clifford algebras, quaternions, and their role in contemporary mathematical physics, see Penrose (2004).

His contemporaries considered him a man of extraordinary acuteness and originality, gifted with quickness of thought and speech, a lucid style, wit and poetic fancy, and a social warmth. In his theory of graphs, or geometrical representations of algebraic functions, there are valuable suggestions which have been worked out by others. He was much interested, too, in universal algebra and elliptic functions, his papers "Preliminary Sketch of Biquaternions" (1873) and "On the Canonical Form and Dissection of a Riemann's Surface" (1877) ranking as classics. Another important paper is his "Classification of Loci" (1878). He also published several papers on algebraic forms and projective geometry.

Friday, December 18, 2009

In lieu of the the highly disappointing results out of Minnesota on December 17th, 2009, I think it's time we start rethinking of other kinds of explanations for "Dark Matter" other than possibly mythical Supersymmetric (SUSY) particles like the "neutralino" (unicorn?) and start thinking about Modified Gravity Theory as an alternative explanation, which was started by this guy:

John Moffat (1932- ) in 2007

Father of Modified Gravity

Moffat met Einstein at age 20, three years before Einstein's death. Einstein was impressed with his work. Einstein introduced him to Niels Bohr who was also impressed.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

(CNN) December 16, 2009 -- Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.

While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.

"The big excitement is that we have found a watery world orbiting a very nearby and very small star," said David Charbonneau, a Harvard professor of astronomy and lead author of an article on the discovery, which appeared this week in the journal Nature.

The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That's significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.

Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.

"Nature is just far more inventive in making planets than we were imagining," he said.

In a way, the newly discovered planet was sitting right in front of astronomers' faces, just waiting for them to look. Instead of using high-powered telescopes attached to satellites, they spotted the planet using an amateur-sized, 16-inch telescope on the ground.

There were no technological reasons the discovery couldn't have happened long ago, Charbonneau said.
The planet is also rather near to our solar system -- only about 40 light-years away.

Planet GJ 1214b is classified as a "super-Earth" because it is between one and 10 times as large as Earth. Scientists have known about the existence of super-Earths for only a couple of years. Most planets discovered by astronomers have been gassy giants that are much more similar to Jupiter than to Earth.

Charbonneau said it's unlikely that any life on the newly discovered planet would be similar to life on Earth, but he didn't discount the idea entirely.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

QFT is nothing less than the single greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th Century if not in the entire History of Humanity to date other than the discovery that Sex leads to Pregnancy, approximately 7000 years ago.

The two most important QFT's are Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).

Other than enrolling in an accredited Graduate Program in Physics, there are printed resources out there that can help you understand the nuts and bolts of this great intellectual achievement.

First, master the Mathematics of Quantum Mechanics, and Special Relativity.

UPDATE: Then read the middle so-called "Hard parts" of Peter Woit's book: Not Even Wrong. In brilliant expository style, he explains (in prose form alone) how QFT came to be, beginning with the mathematics involved, notably Herman Weyl's Group Representation Theory.

Then, read “Quantum Field Theory Demystified, a Self-Teaching Book”, by David McMahon, available in bookstores and targeted to the very intelligent layperson.

UPDATE: Pursuant to Peeter Joot's first comment to this blarticle, QFT Demystified is held in rather low regard by Professional Mathematical Physicists. Peeter suggests playing a "find the Errors" game with it. Sounds like fun Peeter! I'm up to it! One can get a considerable start by reading the comments to the book at it's Amazon page. To Peeter, I agree with your comments re McMahan's QM Demystified, I never bought it.

As early as page 3 McMahon makes mention of the Klein-Gordon equation with its obvious flaws, and moves quickly into the Dirac Equation, which unified Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity and gave birth to QFT.

On page 4 he explains that while position “x-carat” is considered an operator and time “t” a parameter in QM, and one would expect the promotion of “t” to operator status in QFT, that instead “x-carat” is considered a parameter as well, and McMahon goes on from there through its slim but lovely 261 pages.

A most popular book is "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell," by String Theorist Anthony Zee. I would not attempt this book without first mastering Mahon's work. I also own “Nutshell” as Zee refers to his book, and find it as others do a book than likely began in intent as a non-technical popular overview of QFT, then morphed somewhere along the way into a “near”-textbook without quite achieving true textbook status. Nevertheless Zee's humor is infectious, and I enjoyed it, but it is not as important as the following:

For a more Mathematical and better treatment as a textbook, Peter Woit recommends textbooks by Pierre Ramond, Peskin-Schroeder, and V.P. Nair. D.R. Lunsford recommends Michele Magiore and "Advanced QM" by Schwabi.

A wonderful discussion on QFT texts based on Zee's announcement that "Nutshell" will be re-released in 2010 with a new introduction can be found at Peter Woit's blog "Not Even Wrong" here

UPDATE (Dec. 25, 2009): I typed in "Quantum Field Theory" at Amazon and the following books came up in the following order. I would appreciate a Professional commenting on the better ones (in addition to those already mentioned), with thanks in advance.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

As a blonde man married to a brunette wife, I find the following cartoon completely offensive:

Like the World's established Religions, Atheism is also a faith, the belief in no higher power, without proof.

I'm a faithless Agnostic, because I'm Scientifically minded. I "believe" in the Scientific Method (Observe, Hypothesize, Test, Conclude), because it's the only logical system I know of to answer questions.

There is NO "proof" in any established Religion ... OR Atheism.

Therefore I am skeptical of all of them.

I understand the anger of Atheists regarding the established Religions, though. I believe it should be aimed at the Politicians who USE Religion as a means to an end, that end more often than not benefiting the greed of their sponsors.

To better understand how the world we live in got into the mess we find ourselves in today with the Religion bits, I can suggest no better book than The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong. In an enlightened school, it should be required reading, for everyone.

"Agnostics are Atheists without balls."
... Stephen Colbert, author of "I Am America ... And So Can You"

Ouch.

I should point out that Colbert (pronounced: "cole-BEAR" in the great French tradition of sounding their words differently than how than spell) is an American Comedian, like this guy:

"Theoretical Physicists are fucking nuts."
... George Carlin

Not quite. Mathematicians are nuts. Physicists are adorable. We love Mathematicians anyway, though.

Mathemeticians like Paul Erdos, the way he chose to live his life, are greater sources of comedy than professional comedians.

I'm not joking! That IS impressive! I bet he knows where everything in his office is located. If any "secretary" or "administrative assistant" or "grad student"/"post-doc" cleaned that mess up, he'd be lost.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Go to http://philoctetes.org/Home/ to see the home page of Philoctetes, full name: The Philoctetes Center for The Multidisciplinary Study of Imagination
The Center is a bit controversial in Mathematical Physicist circles as one of the Disciplines it allows to be “in play” is Theology. This is partly because it seems to be at least partially funded by The Templeton Foundation, itself a controversial organization as Templeton’s mission appears to be to unify Religion and Science, i.e., God and Humanity, via Physics and Mathematics, and Theology.

There was no Theology brought up at the Roundtable discussion Saturday afternoon, at least none that I noticed (I was 20 minutes late in arriving thanks to New York City traffic and the first snowfall of the season).

I first became aware of this interesting place from a blarticle at Peter Woit’s “Not Even Wrong” blog. Both Woit and his regular posters are critical of Theology, definitely critical of Templeton, and of a previous Roundtable Discussion held at Philoctetes on the subject of “Mathematics and Religion” which included Max Tegmark and Brian Greene on the panel.

My primary reason to attend was to meet Scientific American Senior Editor George Musser, which I did, and as a wonderful unexpected bonus, met my first Scientist in the flesh: Dr. Michael Shara of The American Museum of Natural history.

Shara dominated the discussion for the most part, and wonderfully so. I enjoyed his lucid explanation of Indeterminacy, aka Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, without mentioning either word or expression. Instead he remarked on the delta-E delta-T greater than or equal to Planck’s Constant aspect regarding virtual particles coming into being; and Entropy as well.

George Musser also weighed in quite a bit, explaining fundamental Physics in a nice and non-technical way.

Mark Norell, moderator and the panel's Paleontologist, weighed in on how differently other cultures measure time compared to the way we do in the West.

Olga Ast, the Artist on the panel, was difficult for me to understand because she had a strong Russian accent. She did have something to say about mirror symmetry, however, as she showed a painting of a man looking in a mirror and seeing his back, not his front, meaning I suppose we experience time in a certain way, and no other.

The discussion lasted on the order of 50 minutes, with a 45 minute question-and-answer session following. All was interesting.

One of the most interesting questions was regarding the paradox that length and time can be thought of as being infinite, in the sense that if one divided time in half (say, a second into a half-second, then into a quarter second, etc.) then one would never reach the end of the road or the last moment of one's life. Shara politely shot that down by mentioning the graininess of space and time, meaning you eventually reach an atomic time-span that is fundamental and cannot be further divided, such that one "Planck-time" or "Planck-length" later, you do in fact reach the end of your road, or your life.

Overall it was an enjoyable experience. I have no idea if Philoctetes plans to issue an on-line video of the discussion as I do not know Philoctetes’ policies at the moment regarding same.

About Me

My weblog is named "Multiplication by Infinity", because "Division by Zero" was taken ... and "Division by Infinity" makes me feel very small ... Steven Colyer's Musings in Mathematical Physics and its Effects on Humanity and other Lifeforms.... And Pure Mathematics, Computer Science, Applied Mathematics, Experimental Physics, Engineering, Astronomy (not Cosmology so much), Space Exploration and Lunar Colonization.
I am a Rutgers 1979 Mechanical Engineer (Pi Tau Sigma) and Rutgers 1989 MBA.
("I study Politics and War that my children may study Mathematics and Philosophy."
- 2nd U.S. President John Adams)
I've already studied enough Politics and War and Economics for one lifetime, and so it's time for Math and Science